Dan

Fitz has alot of things I like in a QB. But, he's just not accurate enough to be THE guy. And that's not based on this game, it's based on his career. The last pass to Nelson is the perfect example; he's got the WR open for a good catch but he puts the ball on the wrong side and the safety makes the play. Fitz does that all too often. Add to it Chan's complete abandonment of the run game at the earliest possible opportunity and you have the recipe for a loss every week.

And now 10 mins left in the 2nd quarter Chan abandons the run game. Nice! !@#$

Funny thing is... I told my buddy this week that Benson was going to return to ProBowl form today. Fuggin sucks.

For me, the most amazing stat this year is the number of players on IR. After 4 years of seemingly being in the top 3 in terms of players on IR; we've remained relatively healthy.

Better blocker is my guess. I must admit, though, that the other Nelson is seriously MIA this year even in the passing game. It would appear TE remains a huge weakness for the O.

I liked that too.

yes

Agreed. I'm hoping they'll make some adjustments based on what they saw/did. Otherwise, it's going to be a long afternoon.

Bills D made that look entirely too easy.

I shoulda known... Go Bills!

Go Bills! Love Johnson announcing the game.

I think the disconnect in this argument is the attempt to attribute success to the drafting of a single player. Football is the true team game. A top QB can only become a future HOF prospect if you continue to build the rest of the team properly. Having quality coaching is also pretty darn important. Let's just toss that out there for fun, as well. So, IMO, if you really think Luck is the next great QB; you take him. But, you don't stop there. You stack the team with the right talent and most importantly get good coaches hired to properly utilize those players. Unfortunately, does anyone really think that Modkins and Edwards are Super Bowl caliber coordinators? So, there's going to be a huge confounding variable in any player evaluation on this team until we get better coaching in here.

I completely agree. For that reason, you don't randomly collect data just by picking data at random, you use random number generators and the like. Good point.

It's kinda like how Gore never actually said he invented the internet. Comedians, then pundits, took a comment , skewed it just a little and... there ya have it. Fact.

I suppose... we all believe what we want to believe. No worries...

Considering the Tea Party is a new movement with a much smaller contingent, I think calling it a fringe movement is quite accurate especially prior to the election. Also, if you had control of the media and really wanted to squash the Tea Party, wouldn't it be more effective to just not report on it at all? By reporting on it every night, they're actually giving it notoriety and allowing people to know much more about the movement. So I'd suggest that the liberal media is doing exactly the opposite of what people are claiming they're trying to do and are biased <i>towards </i>the Tea Party. Why don't they give more press time to other "fringe" political parties? Because they like the Tea Party more, that's why. Given that "liberal" is seen as more of a negative label than "conservative"; couldn't you argue that the liberal media is actually helping the conservative candidates by clearly and routinely telling me which one is the conservative candidate. If any thing, I see that as a conservative bias by helping one candidate with a favorable title and helping me more easily identify them. Many of those races were the higher profile ones for a variety of reasons. But, doesn't the media in general always report on the "freak show" events more than the actual issues. That's why Paris Hilton and her like get so much press time. I'd say they're just giving the dumbed down masses what the ratings indicate they watch more than any sort of political bias. The chick in DE said she practiced witchcraft, you gotta admit that's going to get headlines and subsequently a lot of press time for the duration of the event.

Actually, those numbers don't point to any bias at all. Just because someone voted for a democrat; that doesn't mean they slanted news articles towards that candidate. Contrary to popular belief, some people can remain objective in their job despite their personal feelings and beliefs. It's called being a professional. That's what wrong with the news media, in general, today. All too often, "news casters" are required or permitted to inject their personal beliefs into a story rather than just report what has happened; therefore, blurring the line of professionalism. To demonstrate a liberal media bias, you need to point to news articles or reports that purposefully slant the narrative in favor of a liberal candidate - not tell me who the article writer voted for. It's kinda like the scientist that spends his/her life studying the evolution of life histories while being devotedly Christian. According to your logic, because this scientist goes to church every Sunday and teaches Sunday school (following his personal beliefs), his research would have to have a conservative, creationist bias (in his professional career). However, that is not always the case.

And that, right there, is why I still have little to no optimism for this team. The exact same people that will be in the draft room in 2011 were in the draft room in 2010. Did they address any of the team's obvious needs then? We got a rotational RB, a few situational guys, and a couple of guys that aren't on the game day roster. I just can't get excited thinking that all of a sudden these same guys are (1) going to draft for the team's needs or (2) draft players that are actually ready to play. Unless someone can explain the rationale for turning 2010 into a tryout season, I have to assume Nix and Gailey thought they were making good moves to improve the team. Well, here we are at 0-8, and I'm not sure we can say that ANY of their moves during the off season improved the team. IMO, the only solid move they did to improve the team was cut Trent; and that even took them 2 weeks into the regular season to do. If they: fire Edwards and hire a proven DC, address the O and D line and LB position with early draft picks and/or quality FAs - maybe. My guess is they do one of those things and the big move is drafting a QB that will take 2 years to see the field. Then they'll spend the rest of the off season telling us how much progress we made this year.

Considering we're 0-8 and the offensive scoring has dropped off the last 2 weeks, I'd suggest defenses are doing just enough to stop it especially late in the game when it's most critical. Name one offense, other than one lead by Brady or Manning, that can be one-sided and be consistently good. Even if we're not running the ball with much success, we still have to show them the run to keep the defense guessing.

Jackson's biggest problem is... Gailey is as pass happy as Gilbride or Martz has ever been. It's hard for the RB to look good when the QB is throwing the ball 51 times. Then add in splitting carries between Fitz (2 rushes/scrambles), Spiller (7 carries), and McIntire (1 carry); how is Jackson ever supposed to get into a rhythm? He ran the ball 8 times last week.... 8 times. For all Chan's genius (that's sarcasm) and for all the offense's improvement (that's serious); the one thing Chan hasn't figured out how to do is get our running game going. Perhaps it's the run blocking, perhaps it's the "packages", perhaps this is just the offense Chan wants. All I know is we're becoming an extremely unbalanced offense and opposing teams are picking up on it.

Can't really help with that that. But, I'd suggest that if you just want to start a new business, but really have no idea (or care) what type of business; then you're going about it the wrong way. Score.org is a spot that has quite a bit of good info though to get you started, if/when you decide on something you want to do.

No, it's not just you. My brother-in-law and I were saying the exact same thing yesterday evening watching the 1-6 Cowboys sucking it up. There is a growing disparity in the coverage of NFL teams, not only in prime time games, but also in coverage on the pre-game shows. There's a smalll handful of teams that you hear about, get to watch; and all the rest... good luck.

Opposing defenses are figuring out Chan's offense. He relies too heavily on the pass and abandons the run game all too quickly. Making Fitz much easier to defend. One-sided offenses are rarely, if ever, successful in the NFL and throwing 51 times in a game is a one-sided offense. Chan needs to stop giving up on the run the first time we don't gain 10 yards on consecutive plays. It's mind-numbing how we can never field a competent offense and defense during the same game and how we can never seem to find any sort of consistent balance between run and pass on offense. It's been this way for years.

And if your post wasn't enough.... further proof that the game in Toronto appears to be a complete disaster of an experience.

I agree with much of your post. And I'm not blaming Fitz in any way. I'd place this loss, once again, squarely on the coaches shoulders - Chan is entirely too pass happy and gives up on the run; Edwards is lost and refuses to get Kelsay off the field. My point is that Fitz could be a very good QB, if he could improve his accuracy. But, I have no problem with him starting. As far as drafting a new guy... I'd have to wait and see who's available. But, a new QB is far from our biggest need.